Round 2, Vote 4 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Some voters seem to be getting frustrated with the continued fall of Bill Durnan, and as one of the voters who has not yet ranked Durnan in any round so far and does not currently plan to rank him in the top four this round either, I wanted to point out again the reasons why I strongly suspect that Durnan may be largely overrated in a historical context.

The biggest reason is that I think Durnan's actual performance relative to the competition is much less impressive than his trophy case suggests that it was. A big part of Durnan's case is based on those awards, as pretty much every summary of his career talks primarily about his Vezina Trophies and All-Star selections, and all those things certainly would have had an impact on rating his performances.

However, I am not a trophy counter (because I think the voters don't always get it right and because one season is really not a large sample size for goalies), and therefore I don't put very much weight at all on Vezinas or All-Star Team selection. Durnan's career also falls smack in the middle of the period where the GAA leader was always the 1AST (as long as they played at least 75% of the games), which means there is even less information encapsulated in his award history than usual. All that means I believe there is good reason to put a much heavier weighting on Durnan's numbers than on the awards he won.

I prefer to look at saves and goals against over multiple seasons rather than single season awards, and on that score there are definitely reasons not to be completely sold on Bill Durnan. I already presented some save percentage evidence, which was fairly questioned based on the issues of completeness and unofficial recording, but I think you can adjust for the missing data and assume some scorer undercounting in Montreal and still have to conclude that Durnan's save percentages were not dominant relative to the rest of the league in 1948-49 and 1949-50.

Even leaving those numbers aside, however, when you look at Durnan's actual GAA numbers vs. the rest of the league he is not quite as much of an outlier as one might expect given the number of times he led the league in that department. Looking at the five non-war years he played in the NHL, Durnan posted a 2.38 GAA compared to the league average of 2.95, meaning he allowed 19% fewer goals against than average. That is certainly excellent, but it's not an absurd number for a five season stretch, even among goalies who are generally ranked below Durnan. From 1928-29 to 1932-33, Tiny Thompson was also 19% better than league average (1.87 vs. 2.32). George Hainsworth from 1926-27 to 1930-31 was 27% below average (1.56 vs. 2.14). Yet because those periods overlapped, neither of those goalies was able to lead the league in GAA year after year like Durnan did. Nor were they able to rack up All-Star selections since the official awards didn't exist until 1930-31.

Other examples from this group would be Johnny Bower, 15% below league average over a ten year stretch from 1958-59 to 1967-68 (2.48 vs. 2.93), and Tony Esposito and Bernie Parent, who both had five year stretches at over 30% below league average (albeit in an expanded league).

From there we can get into discussions about team defensive strength and the depth of the talent pool and quality of the other goalie competition in the league. Maybe some points can be made there in favour of Durnan relative to some of the others mentioned, but the point is that the GAA vs. league average over multiple seasons framing puts Durnan at a very different starting point relative to the competition than if we begin the discussion with Vezinas and All-Star Teams.

To further support the argument, here are prime GVT numbers for the six goalies in this round who had their entire careers in the GVT era (1943-44 onwards). I took a minimum of five consecutive seasons for each goalie, and extended the period for goalies who performed at a consistent level for a longer period of time:

In terms of GVT/GP, Durnan doesn't really stand out from the pack at all. Factoring in length of prime, playoffs, the size of the talent pool each goalie was competing against and possible shot prevention/shot undercounting for Belfour, I think there might well be a reasonable argument to rank Durnan last out of the six.

At the very least, this shows how Durnan needs to have his two war years (1943-44 and 1944-45) considered to be elite, all-time great seasons just to support the claim that he had a better prime than the goalies he is up against even in this round of voting. Durnan definitely had dominant stats in those two seasons, but the difficulty is that it is hard to isolate his individual contribution given that the Habs were just so much better than the rest of the league.

It was briefly mentioned as well last thread about Dick Irvin possibly being a coach that rode his players hard during the regular season, which would help a goalie's regular season stats. The Canadiens were less effective in the playoffs than their regular season results suggested, even though Durnan's regular season vs. playoff split was fairly typical for the period. To me that suggests that it was more of a team failure than a Durnan failure, which may mean that he shouldn't bear much of the blame for those playoff losses. Unfortunately, the flip side to that is the implication that Durnan's regular season stats may have been boosted. Newspaper articles during Durnan's rookie season talked about the Canadiens' backchecking and strong defensive play and debated how much Durnan was responsible for his ridiculous numbers. Durnan did not get to the NHL until relatively late in his career and he quit relative early, which just adds more uncertainty to his overall record.

In summary, I am still not sure that Durnan's peak really stands out that much among this group of goalies. That's a big problem given that he is giving up a big longevity edge to all of them and has a less distinguished playoff record than most. As a result, I still don't think that it is a open and shut case for Durnan being a top 16 all-time goalie.

I thought it might be that and I don't like it. For most of history, GVT is based primarily off of save percentage, but from 1943-44 to 1951-52, it's based off GAA. I realize the desire to bring GVT farther back into history, but I really don't like the mashing together of different stats at different times and calling it the same thing.

Some voters seem to be getting frustrated with the continued fall of Bill Durnan, and as one of the voters who has not yet ranked Durnan in any round so far and does not currently plan to rank him in the top four this round either, I wanted to point out again the reasons why I strongly suspect that Durnan may be largely overrated in a historical context.

The biggest reason is that I think Durnan's actual performance relative to the competition is much less impressive than his trophy case suggests that it was. A big part of Durnan's case is based on those awards, as pretty much every summary of his career talks primarily about his Vezina Trophies and All-Star selections, and all those things certainly would have had an impact on rating his performances.

However, I am not a trophy counter (because I think the voters don't always get it right and because one season is really not a large sample size for goalies), and therefore I don't put very much weight at all on Vezinas or All-Star Team selection. Durnan's career also falls smack in the middle of the period where the GAA leader was always the 1AST (as long as they played at least 75% of the games), which means there is even less information encapsulated in his award history than usual. All that means I believe there is good reason to put a much heavier weighting on Durnan's numbers than on the awards he won.

I prefer to look at saves and goals against over multiple seasons rather than single season awards, and on that score there are definitely reasons not to be completely sold on Bill Durnan. I already presented some save percentage evidence, which was fairly questioned based on the issues of completeness and unofficial recording, but I think you can adjust for the missing data and assume some scorer undercounting in Montreal and still have to conclude that Durnan's save percentages were not dominant relative to the rest of the league in 1948-49 and 1949-50.

Even leaving those numbers aside, however, when you look at Durnan's actual GAA numbers vs. the rest of the league he is not quite as much of an outlier as one might expect given the number of times he led the league in that department. Looking at the five non-war years he played in the NHL, Durnan posted a 2.38 GAA compared to the league average of 2.95, meaning he allowed 19% fewer goals against than average. That is certainly excellent, but it's not an absurd number for a five season stretch, even among goalies who are generally ranked below Durnan. From 1928-29 to 1932-33, Tiny Thompson was also 19% better than league average (1.87 vs. 2.32). George Hainsworth from 1926-27 to 1930-31 was 27% below average (1.56 vs. 2.14). Yet because those periods overlapped, neither of those goalies was able to lead the league in GAA year after year like Durnan did. Nor were they able to rack up All-Star selections since the official awards didn't exist until 1930-31.

Other examples from this group would be Johnny Bower, 15% below league average over a ten year stretch from 1958-59 to 1967-68 (2.48 vs. 2.93), and Tony Esposito and Bernie Parent, who both had five year stretches at over 30% below league average (albeit in an expanded league).

From there we can get into discussions about team defensive strength and the depth of the talent pool and quality of the other goalie competition in the league. Maybe some points can be made there in favour of Durnan relative to some of the others mentioned, but the point is that the GAA vs. league average over multiple seasons framing puts Durnan at a very different starting point relative to the competition than if we begin the discussion with Vezinas and All-Star Teams.

To further support the argument, here are prime GVT numbers for the six goalies in this round who had their entire careers in the GVT era (1943-44 onwards). I took a minimum of five consecutive seasons for each goalie, and extended the period for goalies who performed at a consistent level for a longer period of time:

In terms of GVT/GP, Durnan doesn't really stand out from the pack at all. Factoring in length of prime, playoffs, the size of the talent pool each goalie was competing against and possible shot prevention/shot undercounting for Belfour, I think there might well be a reasonable argument to rank Durnan last out of the six.

At the very least, this shows how Durnan needs to have his two war years (1943-44 and 1944-45) considered to be elite, all-time great seasons just to support the claim that he had a better prime than the goalies he is up against even in this round of voting. Durnan definitely had dominant stats in those two seasons, but the difficulty is that it is hard to isolate his individual contribution given that the Habs were just so much better than the rest of the league.

It was briefly mentioned as well last thread about Dick Irvin possibly being a coach that rode his players hard during the regular season, which would help a goalie's regular season stats. The Canadiens were less effective in the playoffs than their regular season results suggested, even though Durnan's regular season vs. playoff split was fairly typical for the period. To me that suggests that it was more of a team failure than a Durnan failure, which may mean that he shouldn't bear much of the blame for those playoff losses. Unfortunately, the flip side to that is the implication that Durnan's regular season stats may have been boosted. Newspaper articles during Durnan's rookie season talked about the Canadiens' backchecking and strong defensive play and debated how much Durnan was responsible for his ridiculous numbers. Durnan did not get to the NHL until relatively late in his career and he quit relative early, which just adds more uncertainty to his overall record.

In summary, I am still not sure that Durnan's peak really stands out that much among this group of goalies. That's a big problem given that he is giving up a big longevity edge to all of them and has a less distinguished playoff record than most. As a result, I still don't think that it is a open and shut case for Durnan being a top 16 all-time goalie.

Rather tragic that the assassination of two of hockey's greatest goaltenders is allowed to continue unchecked and unsanctionned.

CG presented rather incomplete and biased data previously. HE WAS CAUGHT.

Now there is another introduction of the mystery hand to support or bring down certain goalies. The undercounting of shots as in the case of Belfour,.

This first started with Martin Brodeur - victim of CG"s blog, now the tactic is extended to Belfour,Durnan, maybe others. So according to CG, SOGS and SV% cannot be trusted because of undercounting or incomplete or inaccurate data. But CG is constantly presenting data based on SOG and SV% yet somehow this data is not tainted.Factor in that he was caught presenting incomplete data - five minutes of work short of completion, that presented a false picture.

CGs points are based on multiple conspiracy theories.

1.) That there was a demonstrable effort to name the Vezina winner as the first AST goalie. But what was the numerical gap in goals allowed between the Vezina winner and the runner-up and/
or third place goalie? Why would writers or coaches engage in such a practice? What would be the actual benefit to coaches to do so? What goes around comes around - coaches especially would only be hurting their own players - payback voting at other positions. What would be the benefit to GMs to game the Vezina voting?
Three conspiracies would have to hold - writers, coaches and GMs over a period of well over 70 seasons for this to have legs.

2.) Undercounting first Brodeur now Durnan and Belfour. Throw in Nashville, maybe Florida so 4 out of 30 teams are not reliable, app 14% of the goalie stats - SOGs, SV% since 1993-94 are unreliable.
Interesting conspiracy amongst 4 NHL arenas. To what benefit? Who benefits from such undercounting? Well CG benefits by using the generated stats as if they were accurate yet disclaiming them when it is necessary to promote or denegrate a goalie.

The Durnan undercounting argument is especially interesting. Two considerations. Same era as the "phantom assists" awarded Red Wings to the detriment of Maurice Richard - long disproven. Then there is the debate about frequency of assists in the various NHL from the 1920s thru the O6 era. Why would the stat keeping in a rink be so inconsistent? What is the benefit? Again if Durnan's stats are tainted then so are the stats of all the goalies who played against him. Yet only Bill Durnan gets punished.

3.) Coaching. CG the Dick Irvin factor in Montreal, mentioned last thread. Does he do additional research or provide additional evidence? No. Does he look at the coaching factor for the other five teams. No. Such research requires a lot of work.
Will look at the Leafs and Hap Day in the next segment.

4.) Team factor. This touches Turk Broda and Bill Durnan. Sad part is that no one has researched this elusive team factor while making unsupported claims about team strengths and influences.

Will start with the Maple Leafs and Hap Day. Hap Day's biggest strength was that he knew how to build a playoff ready team during the regular season. Playing for the Leafs under Dick Irvin Sr, he saw first hand how playoff series were lost after successful regular seasons. He also knew Dick Irvin's tactics. The reverse was not true.

Turk Broda gets criticized for not being a good regular season goalie under Hap Day while he is praised for being an outstanding playoff goalie during the Hap Day era. Conversely Broda is seen as a solid regular season goalie in Toronto and a weak playoff goalie under Dick Irvin. Rather ironic

Facts. 1940-41, under Hap Day when the Leafs had a solid team, Broda won the Vezina, losing in the playoffs to the Bruins even though the Leafs outscored the Bruins and Brimsek 17-15. 1947-48 Broda won his only other Vezina when the Leafs had a solid team.
1941-42, 2nd place, 2nd in Vezina, won the SC, 0-3 comeback. 1942-43thru 1945-46 Leafs were transitional, winning a SC in 1945 failing to make the playoffs in 1946.

1946-47 Leaf liquidated their old defensemen going with a young defence:

Bill Barilko(playoffs) and Jimmy Thomson were 19 while Gus Mortson was 22.Turk Broda was instrumental getting the young defensemen to work as part of the unit during the regular season and playoff ready where the team won the first of three cups.

1947-48 Leafs, first,Vezina and another SC. Doubt that you could say that Broda did not have a good season. This was the season that brought Max Bentley to the team - at a cost of five players

1948-49 Leafs 4th, Broda was 3rd in GA, but the team won the SC.
Loss of Apps hurt offensively(-35 GF) and defensively(+18 GA), similar to the Canadien in 1972 after Beliveau retired. The team was playoff ready and won its third consecutive SC. Hard to see why Broda gets the blame for the regular season drop in team performance.

1943-44 Canadiens coached by Dick Irvin with Bill Durnan in nets allowed 109 goal. The core defensemen were the same both years - Emile Bouchard, Glen Harmon, Leo Lamoureux. Mike McMahon replaced Jack Portland at the start of the 1943-44 season. Maurice Richard was healthy the whole year. Team won the SC. unless you believe that Maurice Richard made the difference with his backchecking and Mike McMahon was the big difference then the only major change was Bill Durnan.

1944-45 Canadiens, same coach, basic team, Frank Eddolls replaced Mike McMahon as a core defenseman. GA rose to 121. Team finished first but lost in the SF to Toronto:

Team was first overall, in GA, 3rd in GF, won the SC. Durnan allowed 104 goals in 40 games, injury replacement Paul Bibeault allowed 30 goals in 10 games.

1946-47 thru 1949-50.Dick Irvin coached, offence disappeared once Toe Blake had to retire due to injury -1947/48 season, GF were 5th,6th,4th and 5th. Defence was solid especially once Doug Harvey was added forming a core of Bouchard/Harmon/Harvey/Reardon. With Bill Durnan in nets they finished 1st, 4th, 1st, 1st in GA.When they made the playoffs during this era, the Canadiens were always the weakest team offensively:

I thought it might be that and I don't like it. For most of history, GVT is based primarily off of save percentage, but from 1943-44 to 1951-52, it's based off GAA. I realize the desire to bring GVT farther back into history, but I really don't like the mashing together of different stats at different times and calling it the same thing.

I do not like it either. Not the first time CG is playing very loose with data. This is seriously compromising the project especially since he refuses to put in disclaimers with the presentations, relying on weak excuses and denials after he is caught.

I thought it might be that and I don't like it. For most of history, GVT is based primarily off of save percentage, but from 1943-44 to 1951-52, it's based off GAA. I realize the desire to bring GVT farther back into history, but I really don't like the mashing together of different stats at different times and calling it the same thing.

I don't really like it either, which is why it was the secondary part of my argument, after the part about comparing GAAs to league average. The reason I posted the numbers in this case is that I didn't think they were particularly unfair to Bill Durnan. If anything they probably inflated his true performance, because using GAA instead of save percentage is essentially assuming that all goalies faced the same number of shots against. If Durnan faced a below-average number of shots against (which seems likely, given what we know about the Montreal teams of that period) then he would be getting partial credit for the work of the team in front of him. Despite that, he still doesn't stand out relative to the rest of the group.

But you're right that it's best to not mix different methods, so let's go with this table instead, which gives GAAs compared to league average for the same six goalies, plus Thompson, Broda and Worters. I think it makes the same overall point as the GVT numbers did, that Durnan's GAA numbers relative to league average do not stand out from this tier of goalies unless you add in the war years of '43-44 and '44-45, as several of the other goalies had a similar level of GAA outperformance relative to average over a much higher number of games:

I don't really like it either, which is why it was the secondary part of my argument, after the part about comparing GAAs to league average. The reason I posted the numbers in this case is that I didn't think they were particularly unfair to Bill Durnan. If anything they probably inflated his true performance, because using GAA instead of save percentage is essentially assuming that all goalies faced the same number of shots against. If Durnan faced a below-average number of shots against (which seems likely, given what we know about the Montreal teams of that period) then he would be getting partial credit for the work of the team in front of him. Despite that, he still doesn't stand out relative to the rest of the group.

But you're right that it's best to not mix different methods, so let's go with this table instead, which gives GAAs compared to league average for the same six goalies, plus Thompson, Broda and Worters. I think it makes the same overall point as the GVT numbers did, that Durnan's GAA numbers relative to league average do not stand out from this tier of goalies unless you add in the war years of '43-44 and '44-45, as several of the other goalies had a similar level of GAA outperformance relative to average over a much higher number of games:

Goalie

Start

End

GP

GAA

LgAvg

Diff

%

Bernie Parent

67-68

78-79

551

2.44

3.13

0.69

22%

Tony Esposito

68-69

77-78

579

2.55

3.18

0.63

20%

Ed Belfour

90-91

00-01

652

2.41

2.96

0.55

19%

Bill Durnan

45-46

49-50

283

2.38

2.95

0.57

19%

Billy Smith

73-74

83-84

465

2.91

3.52

0.61

17%

Johnny Bower

58-59

67-68

454

2.48

2.93

0.45

15%

Tiny Thompson

28-29

38-39

507

2.03

2.29

0.26

11%

Turk Broda

38-39

50-51

535

2.54

2.85

0.31

11%

Roy Worters

27-28

33-34

286

2.13

2.17

0.04

2%

But your admitted biased presentation has further tainted the project. You only make disclaimers and changes when caught. You are basically using the Broad Street Bullies approach to this project.No one, individually or collectively, has the time to verify everything you post so enough nonsense gets thru to influence the results.

The data you post lacks integrity.

Last edited by Canadiens1958: 11-19-2012 at 01:55 AM.
Reason: punctuation

Some voters seem to be getting frustrated with the continued fall of Bill Durnan, and as one of the voters who has not yet ranked Durnan in any round so far and does not currently plan to rank him in the top four this round either, I wanted to point out again the reasons why I strongly suspect that Durnan may be largely overrated in a historical context.

The biggest reason is that I think Durnan's actual performance relative to the competition is much less impressive than his trophy case suggests that it was. A big part of Durnan's case is based on those awards, as pretty much every summary of his career talks primarily about his Vezina Trophies and All-Star selections, and all those things certainly would have had an impact on rating his performances.

However, I am not a trophy counter (because I think the voters don't always get it right and because one season is really not a large sample size for goalies), and therefore I don't put very much weight at all on Vezinas or All-Star Team selection. Durnan's career also falls smack in the middle of the period where the GAA leader was always the 1AST (as long as they played at least 75% of the games), which means there is even less information encapsulated in his award history than usual. All that means I believe there is good reason to put a much heavier weighting on Durnan's numbers than on the awards he won.

I prefer to look at saves and goals against over multiple seasons rather than single season awards, and on that score there are definitely reasons not to be completely sold on Bill Durnan. I already presentedsome save percentage evidence, which was fairly questioned based on the issues of completeness and unofficial recording, but I think you can adjust for the missing data and assume some scorer undercounting in Montreal and still have to conclude that Durnan's save percentages were not dominant relative to the rest of the league in 1948-49 and 1949-50.

Very cute. You actual introduce your incomplete numbers again with wording that understates the fact that the data was simply inaccurate and very misleading.

When you raised valid concerns about the incompleteness and possible bias to the data, I recalculated the numbers to account for the missing information and posted them. I have also referred to the potential data issues every time I have brought them up since. The suggestion that I was or am trying to hide something does not match the facts of the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

Now there is another introduction of the mystery hand to support or bring down certain goalies. The undercounting of shots as in the case of Belfour,

This first started with Martin Brodeur - victim of CG"s blog, now the tactic is extended to Belfour,Durnan, maybe others. So according to CG, SOGS and SV% cannot be trusted because of undercounting or incomplete or inaccurate data. But CG is constantly presenting data based on SOG and SV% yet somehow this data is not tainted.Factor in that he was caught presenting incomplete data - five minutes of work short of completion, that presented a false picture.

The subjectivity of the home scorer can be a source of bias, but it is a consistent source of bias since they usually record games the same way night after night. This means it can be adjusted for, and the best way to deal with under- or overcounting is to look at the evidence, assess the likely magnitude of the effect, and add that back in to the goalie's stats. Another option when there is suspicion of unusual shot counting is to look at road save percentages to try to remove the effect. I have used both methods.

That does not mean that save percentages cannot be trusted, it merely means that there is an additional variable that should be considered in some cases. It's no different than taking into account team effects like shot quality for goalies on strong or weak defensive teams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

CGs points are based on multiple conspiracy theories.

1.) That there was a demonstrable effort to name the Vezina winner as the first AST goalie. But what was the numerical gap in goals allowed between the Vezina winner and the runner-up and/
or third place goalie? Why would writers or coaches engage in such a practice? What would be the actual benefit to coaches to do so? What goes around comes around - coaches especially would only be hurting their own players - payback voting at other positions. What would be the benefit to GMs to game the Vezina voting?
Three conspiracies would have to hold - writers, coaches and GMs over a period of well over 70 seasons for this to have legs.

I have never claimed there was an effort to name the Vezina winner as the first AST goalie. In the original post on my blog where I pointed out the fact that the two were nearly always awarded to the same goalie, I in fact stated that I think that the voters were sincerely trying to pick the best goalie, and were probably largely unaware of how much weight they were putting on GAA in their evaluations. I still hold that opinion.

Subjective evaluations are influenced by stats, that should not be a controversial statement. Look at the goal totals and plus/minus numbers for Selke Trophy winners, for example. It is very difficult to separate the goalie from the rest of the team. That's why many voters have posted about how difficult this project has been so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

2.) Undercounting first Brodeur now Durnan and Belfour. Throw in Nashville, maybe Florida so 4 out of 30 teams are not reliable, app 14% of the goalie stats - SOGs, SV% since 1993-94 are unreliable.
Interesting conspiracy amongst 4 NHL arenas. To what benefit? Who benefits from such undercounting? Well CG benefits by using the generated stats as if they were accurate yet disclaiming them when it is necessary to promote or denegrate a goalie.

Again, no conspiracy is required. RTSS stats vary from rink to rink, and there is some subjectivity in recording shots. Nobody has to benefit for this to be the case, it's simple operator error. Two humans will not always perceive the same event in the same way.

My only response to the suggestion that I am using scorer bias as a way to make the numbers fit my preconceived conceptions is to point out that I was originally a skeptic that shot counting was a significant issue. I changed my mind when others presented convincing arguments that it needed to be taken into account. I have almost seven years' worth of posts online that show that I have changed my opinion on a number of topics based on evidence, and when the voting records of this project are released they will show that I have changed my opinion a number of times already based on arguments other voters have presented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

The Durnan undercounting argument is especially interesting. Two considerations. Same era as the "phantom assists" awarded Red Wings to the detriment of Maurice Richard - long disproven. Then there is the debate about frequency of assists in the various NHL from the 1920s thru the O6 era. Why would the stat keeping in a rink be so inconsistent? What is the benefit? Again if Durnan's stats are tainted then so are the stats of all the goalies who played against him. Yet only Bill Durnan gets punished.

I never claimed that Durnan's shots were definitely undercounted, I pointed out that there may have been potential undercounting because his home shots against rate was lower than his road shots against rate by 5.6 shots per 60 minutes of play, as recorded by S. Klages from the newspaper data.

Furthermore, goalies aren't punished when an adjustment is made for potential undercounting at their home rinks. Such an adjustment adds back the shots that were assumed to have been missed, thereby increasing the goalie's save percentage. It was in fact being charitable to Durnan to suggest it is possible that he may have got credit for fewer saves in Montreal than he otherwise deserved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

But your admitted biased presentation has further tainted the project. You only make disclaimers and changes when caught. You are basically using the Broad Street Bullies approach to this project.No one, individually or collectively, has the time to verify everything you post so enough nonsense gets thru to influence the results.

The data you post lacks integrity.

If you have specific examples of "nonsense" or data lacking integrity, please bring them up, because I don't appreciate generic and baseless accusations.

And I am not "admitting bias" at all. The whole point of bringing new information to the table is to have other people consider it and weigh in. Sometimes that new information is valuable, sometimes it is limited, that's the point of having a discussion with a group of expert voters. If you want to disregard that data because it doesn't meet your standards, then feel free to disregard it. And if you want to change the mind of the people who don't have Durnan rated as highly as you do (and it's not just me), make a good argument for him. I appreciate your efforts in the last post, although it seemed to completely omit the impact of WWII on the NHL from 1942-43 to 1943-44, and I don't agree that a goalie must have deserved a First All-Star Team because his team was weak offensively.

As for combining GVT numbers going back to 1944, the inventor of the metric Tom Awad did that in an article on the top goalies of all-time for Puck Prospectus, where he rates Durnan fairly highly based on his GAA results. I think it is important to compare across eras, and not just based on All-Star/Vezina voting, but I accept the criticism that it is better to avoid doing so where possible because the metric is based on different statistics for different years.

When you raised valid concerns about the incompleteness and possible bias to the data, I recalculated the numbers to account for the missing information and posted them. I have also referred to the potential data issues every time I have brought them up since. The suggestion that I was or am trying to hide something does not match the facts of the situation.

The subjectivity of the home scorer can be a source of bias, but it is a consistent source of bias since they usually record games the same way night after night. This means it can be adjusted for, and the best way to deal with under- or overcounting is to look at the evidence, assess the likely magnitude of the effect, and add that back in to the goalie's stats. Another option when there is suspicion of unusual shot counting is to look at road save percentages to try to remove the effect. I have used both methods.

That does not mean that save percentages cannot be trusted, it merely means that there is an additional variable that should be considered in some cases. It's no different than taking into account team effects like shot quality for goalies on strong or weak defensive teams.

I have never claimed there was an effort to name the Vezina winner as the first AST goalie. In the original post on my blog where I pointed out the fact that the two were nearly always awarded to the same goalie, I in fact stated that I think that the voters were sincerely trying to pick the best goalie, and were probably largely unaware of how much weight they were putting on GAA in their evaluations. I still hold that opinion.

Subjective evaluations are influenced by stats, that should not be a controversial statement. Look at the goal totals and plus/minus numbers for Selke Trophy winners, for example. It is very difficult to separate the goalie from the rest of the team. That's why many voters have posted about how difficult this project has been so far.

Again, no conspiracy is required. RTSS stats vary from rink to rink, and there is some subjectivity in recording shots. Nobody has to benefit for this to be the case, it's simple operator error. Two humans will not always perceive the same event in the same way.

My only response to the suggestion that I am using scorer bias as a way to make the numbers fit my preconceived conceptions is to point out that I was originally a skeptic that shot counting was a significant issue. I changed my mind when others presented convincing arguments that it needed to be taken into account. I have almost seven years' worth of posts online that show that I have changed my opinion on a number of topics based on evidence, and when the voting records of this project are released they will show that I have changed my opinion a number of times already based on arguments other voters have presented.

I never claimed that Durnan's shots were definitely undercounted, I pointed out that there may have been potential undercounting because his home shots against rate was lower than his road shots against rate by 5.6 shots per 60 minutes of play, as recorded by S. Klages from the newspaper data.

Furthermore, goalies aren't punished when an adjustment is made for potential undercounting at their home rinks. Such an adjustment adds back the shots that were assumed to have been missed, thereby increasing the goalie's save percentage. It was in fact being charitable to Durnan to suggest it is possible that he may have got credit for fewer saves in Montreal than he otherwise deserved.

If you have specific examples of "nonsense" or data lacking integrity, please bring them up, because I don't appreciate generic and baseless accusations.

And I am not "admitting bias" at all. The whole point of bringing new information to the table is to have other people consider it and weigh in. Sometimes that new information is valuable, sometimes it is limited, that's the point of having a discussion with a group of expert voters. If you want to disregard that data because it doesn't meet your standards, then feel free to disregard it. And if you want to change the mind of the people who don't have Durnan rated as highly as you do (and it's not just me), make a good argument for him. I appreciate your efforts in the last post, although it seemed to completely omit the impact of WWII on theNHL from 1942-43 to 1943-44, and I don't agree that a goalie must have deserved a First All-Star Team because his team was weak offensively.

As for combining GVT numbers going back to 1944, the inventor of the metric Tom Awad did that inan article on the top goalies of all-time for Puck Prospectus, where he rates Durnan fairly highly based on his GAA results. I think it is important to compare across eras, and not just based on All-Star/Vezina voting, but I accept the criticism that it is better to avoid doing so where possible because the metric is based on different statistics for different years.

First two bolded quotes. Being generous you posted data that can be generously viewed as a work in progress. Now you admit that you completed it after you were caught because the data was incomplete and inaccurate. Now you admit that you had access to the additional data that would have made the post in question more complete and had the ability to complete it before posting the original incomplete and inaccurate work. Effectively you chose not to. until you were caught.

Next two bolded quotes, evidence and subjectivity. First do you have evidence that in the 1940s and into the Ron Andrews era of statistics it was actually the job of one person to regularly track shots at the home arena? The subjectivity issue is interesting since it seems to be raised by those who overlook the objective facts. In the 1940s Boston and Chicago had smaller rinks and both teams continued to play on the same smaller rinks into the 1990s. This is an objective and acknowledged fact, yet you never take it into account as a factor in goaltender performance either H/R or over the course of a season or multiple seasons. Furthermore you do not take another objective fact into consideration - scheduling. The Canadiens and Leafs always played the Sunday night game on the road of the string of two weekend games, 3 games in 4 nights, 4 games in 5 nights. Often the Sunday night opponent had the Saturday off or had not played since Wednesday or Thursday. So the SOG differential would be explainable. Yet you never raise these points.

WWII impact - fifth bolded. Not the purpose of the thread and as I've mentioned previously, the depression effects would have to be considered as well. Interesting that you claim to be able to adjust for alleged undercounting but are incapable of supporting your claim of a WWII effect with an appropriate adjustment. If it exists the WWII effect would definitely be objective so an adjustment metric should be available. Yet it is not. Why? You have such metrics - for shot counter bias, an unproven subjective phantom allegation but not for real objective facts - rink size, scheduling, WWII, coaching differentials - Vegas bookies adjust the odds for NFL coaching so it is doable for hockey, to name four.

Tom Awad. So you finally get around to crediting the source of your data. About time. Very uncomfortable with your last bolded. You accept criticism after the damage of your misrepresentation has been done. No effort to delete the damage in fact you further it.
The Broad Street Bully approach. Instead of doing positive advocacy for goalies up for discussion in the project, others get dragged into your trap of having to verify all of your incomplete, uncredited until forced, and inaccurate work. This delays the positive work of others and gives you a net advantage since the positive information gets surpressed or delayed while your incomplete and inaccurate data abounds and dominates.

First two bolded quotes. Being generous you posted data that can be generously viewed as a work in progress. Now you admit that you completed it after you were caught because the data was incomplete and inaccurate. Now you admit that you had access to the additional data that would have made the post in question more complete and had the ability to complete it before posting the original incomplete and inaccurate work. Effectively you chose not to. until you were caught.

Again, you're misunderstanding what I said and what I did. The data is not complete, as originally stated, and there was also no additional data added. I didn't dig up copies of old newspapers and fill in the missing games, I agreed with your suggestion of assuming that goalies faced shots against at the same rate over their missing minutes as they did over what we have numbers for.

This is absolutely, 100% certain to be an incorrect assumption, as it does not account for the quality of competition and the numbers are going to vary much more widely over the much smaller sample of missing games than they will over the larger sample size of what is there. Yet for some reason you have no problem at all with that simplifying assumption, while at the same time portraying me as trying to mislead the rest of the panel because of my original assumption that the missing minutes were randomly distributed from the sample.

Missing information is not that unusual when you're used to dealing with Hockey Summary Project data or international goalie numbers. It is regrettably often all we have to work with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

Next two bolded quotes, evidence and subjectivity. First do you have evidence that in the 1940s and into the Ron Andrews era of statistics it was actually the job of one person to regularly track shots at the home arena?

No, because again, I'm not making a claim about shot counting in the 1940s. I pointed it out as a possible factor because I was trying to be as fair as possible to Bill Durnan. The evidence I have seen from the pre-expansion era does not suggest that scorer bias was a major issue in any of the rinks, although it is likely that numbers may have at least varied slightly depending on location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

The subjectivity issue is interesting since it seems to be raised by those who overlook the objective facts. In the 1940s Boston and Chicago had smaller rinks and both teams continued to play on the same smaller rinks into the 1990s. This is an objective and acknowledged fact, yet you never take it into account as a factor in goaltender performance either H/R or over the course of a season or multiple seasons.

I haven't seen evidence that home/road save percentage splits are greater for goalies playing on small rinks. I think that is possible that is the case, but without evidence the burden of proof is on whoever wants to make that claim to show it is meaningful.

I checked the home/road numbers for Chicago goalie with the most minutes played in each season since 1987-88, and it looks like the home/road split was greater in the team's new rink than in the old one, suggesting shot counting may have been a more significant variable than rink size:

Furthermore you do not take another objective fact into consideration - scheduling. The Canadiens and Leafs always played the Sunday night game on the road of the string of two weekend games, 3 games in 4 nights, 4 games in 5 nights. Often the Sunday night opponent had the Saturday off or had not played since Wednesday or Thursday. So the SOG differential would be explainable. Yet you never raise these points.

I consider it highly unlikely that the scheduling difference accounts for a SOG gap of 5.6 per game. There have been analysts that have looked at the impact of playing back-to-back, here's one example. The rested team has an advantage, but far from enough of an advantage to account for such a large gap in shots.

BM67 has also been posting home/road splits for the goalies of the '30s and '40s. Durnan actually had the lowest home/road split of any of them, with a GAA 18% higher on the road (Brimsek's was 20%, Broda's was 26%, Gardiner's was 24%). That does not suggest that an unfavourable schedule made a huge impact on his numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

WWII impact - fifth bolded. Not the purpose of the thread and as I've mentioned previously, the depression effects would have to be considered as well. Interesting that you claim to be able to adjust for alleged undercounting but are incapable of supporting your claim of a WWII effect with an appropriate adjustment. If it exists the WWII effect would definitely be objective so an adjustment metric should be available. Yet it is not. Why?

In short, lack of a control variable. There is no alternate universe where players did not go to war to compare against the historical record. On the other hand, every goalie has road numbers made up from the recorded totals of scorers from a variety of rinks around the league than can be compared against their home numbers, making for a much simpler analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

Tom Awad. So you finally get around to crediting the source of your data. About time.

I think the GVT stat is well enough known in this forum. TDMM has used it quite a bit in his arguments as well, without citing Awad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

Very uncomfortable with your last bolded. You accept criticism after the damage of your misrepresentation has been done. No effort to delete the damage in fact you further it.

There was no "misrepresentation" and no "damage". Again, I don't know how it could possibly hurt Durnan to use a stat that is very likely to be in his favour (using GAA instead of save percentage). Do you seriously think that posters should delete posts every time somebody makes a suggestion or a comment about their results or methodology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

The Broad Street Bully approach. Instead of doing positive advocacy for goalies up for discussion in the project, others get dragged into your trap of having to verify all of your incomplete, uncredited until forced, and inaccurate work. This delays the positive work of others and gives you a net advantage since the positive information gets surpressed or delayed while your incomplete and inaccurate data abounds and dominates.

I've done plenty of positive advocacy for goalies in this project. You have to go back all of 13 posts to find one. The only misrepresentation being done here is about my motives and the quality of my contributions.

I honestly think Belfour is closer to Roy/Hasek/Brodeur than he is to any other goalie who came after 1990. The man won 2 Vezinas and was a clearcut #2 to prime Hasek for a third. Also, he was fantastic in the playoffs for Dallas. His career playoff GVT is second only to Patrick Roy, mostly driven by his years in Dallas. I do think that Ken Hitchcock has a history of making goalies look statistically better than they actually were, but that's still quite impressive. I definitely remember Belfour getting a lot of credit for outdueling Patrick Roy in the playoffs two seasons in a row.

Of course he is a clear cut #4 who is closer to 3rd than 5th. My point is, why should I care how he compares to Tom Barrasso? He is also a clear step behind 3rd.I don't think we can say he's that close to Brodeur. He was close when he had a great year, but he was so inconsistent that it means that 25% of the time he was up there. And that's what skews the Vezina share metric, or the omission metric. When Belfour was on, yes, he'll put up results that make him look great. But your metrics do nothing to hold him accountable to the times he lost his job to Jeff Hackett, Mike Vernon and Marty Turco. With a player like Belfour, you cannot simply judge him on when he was strong. You have to judge him on when he was weak as well. And when he was weak, comparing him to Brodeur was beyond laughable. And it's not like his weakness came at the end of his career and he kept getting more chances after he stopped earning them. It's more like he'd get comfortable then just stop trying.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.

I do not like it either. Not the first time CG is playing very loose with data. This is seriously compromising the project especially since he refuses to put in disclaimers with the presentations, relying on weak excuses and denials after he is caught.

Let's focus on posts and not on posters. We don't need yet another thread getting hostile (and I will take appropriate measures to ensure that this thread stays nice).

Of course he is a clear cut #4 who is closer to 3rd than 5th. My point is, why should I care how he compares to Tom Barrasso? He is also a clear step behind 3rd.I don't think we can say he's that close to Brodeur. He was close when he had a great year, but he was so inconsistent that it means that 25% of the time he was up there. And that's what skews the Vezina share metric, or the omission metric. When Belfour was on, yes, he'll put up results that make him look great. But your metrics do nothing to hold him accountable to the times he lost his job to Jeff Hackett, Mike Vernon and Marty Turco. With a player like Belfour, you cannot simply judge him on when he was strong. You have to judge him on when he was weak as well. And when he was weak, comparing him to Brodeur was beyond laughable. And it's not like his weakness came at the end of his career and he kept getting more chances after he stopped earning them. It's more like he'd get comfortable then just stop trying.

I think it was more like 75% of the time Belfour was strong to varying degrees but near Brodeur-level, but 25% of the time he was weak. Weird career in that he played very well for several years, had an awful year, would be moved to another city and would play awesome for a few years again. For whatever reason, Belfour tended to be awful in his last year in a city.

Believe me, I value consistency by a goalie a lot (it's great to know that going into the season, Brodeur will give you consistently high level play season after season for 17 years), but it's not the only thing.

Where do you rate a guy like Belfour who was at a Brodeur level the majority of the time, but who (unlike Brodeur), had some serious pitfalls thrown in? I think you add him pretty soon, though I'm not sure if it's this round or not.

We didn't add a post-expansion goalie last round, and I think we are due this round to add at least one. How does Belfour compare to Parent and Esposito? (And Holecek - I'm going to make a megapost on Holecek sometime this week, but don't let that stop anyone else).

GVT (Goals Versus Threshold) is the most widely used All-in-One stat in the hockey analytics community. As someone from the stats community, I think CG is just used to everyone he talks to being familiar with the stat.

I know its easy to forget that we don't all have the same knowledge background, and that's fine. I think going forward it's best to ask questions if we don't understand an argument or jargon that someone is using.

I think it was more like 75% of the time Belfour was strong to varying degrees but near Brodeur-level, but 25% of the time he was weak. Weird career in that he played very well for several years, had an awful year, would be moved to another city and would play awesome for a few years again. For whatever reason, Belfour tended to be awful in his last year in a city.

Believe me, I value consistency by a goalie a lot (it's great to know that going into the season, Brodeur will give you consistently high level play season after season for 17 years), but it's not the only thing.

Where do you rate a guy like Belfour who was at a Brodeur level the majority of the time, but who (unlike Brodeur), had some serious pitfalls thrown in? I think you add him pretty soon, though I'm not sure if it's this round or not.

We didn't add a post-expansion goalie last round, and I think we are due this round. How does Belfour compare to Parent and Esposito? (And Holecek - I'm going to make a megapost on Holecek sometime this week, but don't let that stop anyone else).

I still have no idea what to do with Parent. Two years of Hasek/Sawchuk level, and a rest of career at a not a top 60 goalie level. Essentially the Jan Suchy or Art Duncan of goalies. And I wouldn't put either of them in the top 20 of d-men...

I'd rank Esposito over Belfour. I value Espo's consistently over Belfour's 3 good playoffs. (I personally feel playoff performance by goalies is too linked to team ability that I put very little value on it.)

Look at Belfour's numbers a bit closer. In Chicago his number were in steady decline after those first few years and was outplayed by Hackett the year before he was traded as well. In Dallas he was never really better than his back-ups after the first season, and was very clearly outplayed by Turco. His play was buffered by playing behind the best defensive team in the league. Toronto is pretty much the only place he was clearly better than his back-ups. And his back-ups there were crap.

Belfour was only better than readily available replacements for about 25% of his career.

I checked the home/road numbers for Chicago goalie with the most minutes played in each season since 1987-88, and it looks like the home/road split was greater in the team's new rink than in the old one, suggesting shot counting may have been a more significant variable than rink size:

I consider it highly unlikely that the scheduling difference accounts for a SOG gap of 5.6 per game. There have been analysts that have looked at the impact of playing back-to-back, here's one example. The rested team has an advantage, but far from enough of an advantage to account for such a large gap in shots.

The presented data does not reflect O6 circumstances and scheduling, nor does the study cited reflect O6 circumstances and scheduling: The O6 scheduling disappeared with the early CBAs. So you no longer see goalies on top teams on the tail end of a trip facing 25-30 quality shots in a period.

As such it has no bearing on the 1940s circumstances that goalies of the era faced. Likewise the conclusions reached are strictly limited to the era studied.Not applicable to the 1940s.

In short, lack of a control variable. There is no alternate universe where players did not go to war to compare against the historical record.On the other hand, every goalie has road numbers made up from the recorded totals of scorers from a variety of rinks around the league than can be compared against their home numbers, making for a much simpler analysis.

Alternative universe. Try alternative sport or the CFL. 1942 RCAF Hurricanes won the Grey Cup. 7 of the players from the team died in WWII.

During the two years in question Bill Durnan played home and road games as you correctly state above. 1943-44, 109 GA, 50 home, 59 away. Pretty solid for a rookie learning the league and rinks.1945-45, 121 GA, 63 home, 58 away. Again very solid on the road.

I still have no idea what to do with Parent. Two years of Hasek/Sawchuk level, and a rest of career at a not a top 60 goalie level.

My feeling is that such a player must have been a product of his environment rather than a difference-maker.

I mean, if Parent were a difference-maker then he would have done it either before or after those 2 seasons, right? It kind of strains credulity that he abruptly started and stopped being an all-time legendary performer. We sometimes see goalies do that after one or two great early seasons, when they get solved, but seeing it mid-career is harder to explain.

Does anyone feel like Parent is getting the shaft here? I was really feeling good about him a couple of rounds ago but as Mike Farkas said, every time I dig deeper I get a little more uneasy with him.

During the two years in question Bill Durnan played home and road games as you correctly state above. 1943-44, 109 GA, 50 home, 59 away. Pretty solid for a rookie learning the league and rinks.1945-45, 121 GA, 63 home, 58 away. Again very solid on the road.

The fact that every other team but Montreal, and to a lesser extent Toronto, was gutted by players joining the military to fight in World War II (remember, there was a military draft) is pretty strong evidence that players on Montreal (and to a lesser extent Toronto) were at a distinct advantage those two years.

The depletion of NHL rosters created opportunities for athletes who might otherwise have never played an NHL game. By 1942-43 approximately 80 NHL players were in the armed forces, gutting rosters around the six team league.

Quote:

In response to the dilution of talent during World War II, the league changed its rules to encourage a faster paced game. Until 1943, a player was not allowed to make a forward pass across his own blue line. That changed in the 1943-44 season, when the NHL ruled that players could pass from their defensive zone up to the middle of the rink, which would be marked by a new red line at center ice. This changed the game drastically, as many returning war veterans discovered upon their return. Also, regular season overtime had to be discontinued due to wartime curfew restrictions. OT would not return for 41 years.

The NHL talent effluence was said to have clearly have deteriorated play in the mid-1940s, regardless of NHL rule changes. Yet all of the Original Six franchises continued to do well at the gate. Interestingly though, errant pucks into the audience had to be returned because of the wartime rubber shortage.

The war also shifted the power balance in the league, with Montreal placing building blocks that would make them the dominant team of the next few decades. The Habs were often successful finding jobs for players and prospects in essential industries like munitions and shipbuilding, the Montreal Canadiens kept their talent home, building the foundation for several Stanley Cup championships.

The Bruins and the Rangers, two league powers as the 1940s started, were especially hit hard by players leaving for war. It is no coincidence that these two teams plummeted immediately in the standings, and struggled for years beyond that.

My feeling is that such a player must have been a product of his environment rather than a difference-maker.

I mean, if Parent were a difference-maker then he would have done it either before or after those 2 seasons, right? It kind of strains credulity that he abruptly started and stopped being an all-time legendary performer. We sometimes see goalies do that after one or two great early seasons, when they get solved, but seeing it mid-career is harder to explain.

Does anyone feel like Parent is getting the shaft here? I was really feeling good about him a couple of rounds ago but as Mike Farkas said, every time I dig deeper I get a little more uneasy with him.

Wikipedia speaks of the efforts of the Canadiens to keep their players during World War 2:

Quote:

By 1943, the war effort had a devastating effect on many rosters. The Red Wings lost nine players and the Maple Leafs lost six to the military.[70] The Rangers lost ten players and had to be persuaded by the other teams not to suspend operations.[71][72] In contrast, the Canadiens lost only one key player in Ken Reardon. Young phenom Maurice Richard tried to enlist, but was turned down due to his medical history.[71] Canadiens General Manager Tommy Gorman reportedly ensured his players obtained jobs in key wartime industries to avoid conscription.[73]